I will present these three amendments to the SREC and it is
my hope that ONE of these amendments will be approved by the SREC at the
February 29th, 2012 Emergency SREC meeting.

Each one of these proposals is different, but they all will
give more delegates (in some form or fashion) to the candidate who wins the
Texas Presidential Primary Election. These proposals will allow the state of
Texas to have a stronger voice in the National Presidential Race vs. the
straight Proportional plan that Texas currently has.

Purpose of these Amendments to Modify
Rule 38/Delegate Selection:

In October 2011, the SREC had to change the RPT Delegate
Selection Rules (rule 38) in order to avoid being penalized by the RNC. The RNC
had come out with new rules which required states having a Primary/Caucus
before April to have a “proportional” Presidential Delegate Selection plan
instead of a “winner take all” plan. Texas was scheduled to have a March
primary and therefore was required to have a proportional delegate selection
plan or risk getting penalized and losing half of the state’s delegates.

Prior to October 2011, Texas was not a true “winner take
all” state and already had a “modified proportional plan”. If a candidate got
over 50% of the votes in the Primary election, that candidate got all of the
delegates, but if no candidate got more than 50% of the votes then the
delegates would be split up between the candidates. Under that pre-October 2011
plan, there was a POSSIBILITY of a candidate getting all the votes if they got
over 50% of the Primary vote, but the plan was still technically a proportional
plan (modified) in that the delegates for Texas were allocated to the different
candidates based on the percentage outcome of the election. With 4 candidates
splitting the vote the year, Texas would likely have split up the votes
proportionally even if we had never changed the rules and had stayed with the
pre-October 2011 delegate selection plan.

Texas was never a true “winner take all state” and the
argument could be made that the RPT already complied with the new RNC
“proportional” rules and therefore did not even have to change the rules in
October 2011 in order to be proportional.

In order to avoid the POSSIBILITY of the RNC saying that
Texas had a “winner take all” plan, the SREC voted in October 2011 to go to a
“more proportional” plan. This “more proportional” plan required the votes to
be split up proportionally between any candidate receiving 20% or more of the
Primary Election votes.

So now here we are in February 2012. Our Primary will NOT be
in March and will instead be in May or maybe even June. Our Primary Election
will be well past March or April and therefore Texas could have a true “winner
take all” delegate selection plan without breaking the RNC rules.

With Texas having such a late Primary election, it is
imperative for Texas to move away from a “proportional” plan and go more
towards a “winner take all” plan.

The problem is that the RNC required any state delegate
selection rule changes to be submitted by Oct 1st, 2011. We are well
past that deadline to be able to submit delegate selection rule changes to the
RNC.

As a result of the
Court Ordered delay of the Texas Primary Election, Texas has NO CHOICE but to
make emergency changes to the entire convention/delegate selection plan.

On top of that, Texas
will also need to request that the RNC grant a waiver to allow these changes
to be made because we are past the October 1st, 2011 deadline.

I would expect that the RNC will grant us the waiver because
the changes to our rules are a result of a court ordered delay of our Primary
election due to the fact that Texas is fighting the Democrats over
redistricting.

If the RNC denies us
a waiver, the RNC would effectively be penalizing Texas for standing up and
fighting against the Democrats. The RNC wouldn’t penalize us for standing up to
the Democrats would they?

Also, the RPT has completely followed the RNC rules through
the entire process in order to not be penalized by having a march Primary. Any
state that had an April or later primary (including us) could have had a winner
take all. By switching back to a winner take all or modified proportional,
Texas will not be getting any special privilege not granted to any other states
because any state with an April or later primary could have had winner take
all. The only “privilege” that Texas is asking for is for a waiver to be able
to change our rules AS A RESULT of a
court ordered requirement to change our rules and because our Primary is
greatly delayed due to us fighting the Democrats over redistricting.

Since we are already having to request a waiver for the
changes we have to make to our Convention/Delegate Selection rules as a result
of the Court Ordered delay of the Primary, why not go ahead and change back to
the “Modified Proportional” delegate selection plan that we previously had, or
why not even go to a true “winner take all” plan?

The SREC MUST change
our delegate selection plan in order to keep Texas relevant! We don’t need
to listen to the people who will make excuses for keeping the current plan,
such as the RNC might not give us a waiver or the DOJ might not approve it. What is the worst that can happen? The RNC
tells us no? The DOJ tells us no? Big deal if they tell us no and we have to
stay with our old plan. What have we lost in that? At least we will have TRIED
to do the right thing. The RNC and DOJ might say no to our changes anyways
even if we do not change the delegate selection plan. The only thing we risk is
being told no and having to stick with our current delegate selection plan. If
the RNC says no then they are the ones risking backlash for effectively
punishing Texas for standing up against the Democrats in court. If the DOJ tells us no then we might have ourselves an open
door for a showdown in the Supreme Court over the Voting Rights Act.

We need to stand up and at least TRY to do what we can to
allow Texas to have a voice in this Presidential Primary race, in spite of our
VERY late Primary.

We NEED to change our
Delegate Selection Plan to allow Texas to put more delegate behind one
candidate if we want to have any voice in the Republican Presidential Race.

Sincerely,

David Bellow

SREC SD3

Below are the THREE different
proposed amendments.

The first amendment gives us a pure winner take all plan so
that all state delegates will back the candidate who wins Texas. The second
amendment gives us a modified winner take all plan which gives a candidate the
possibility of winning all of the delegates if a candidate gets over 50% of the
vote but then goes to proportional if no candidates gets 50% of more. The third
amendment will give us a plurality proportional plan in which the delegates
will be split up proportionally so that no candidate has the possibility of
winning ALL the delegates, but the candidate who wins the plurality of the
votes will still get the majority of the delegates.

David Bellow Amendments to
the Proposed Emergency Changes are in RED

“Plurality Winner Take All” Amendment
TO THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY AND EMERGENCY CHANGES TO RPT RULES:

Section
10. Pledge of Delegates and Alternates.

a.
Commitment to Candidate: Following canvass of the

presidential
primary by the SREC, the State Chairman shall, in a

manner directly proportional to the statewide presidential
vote,

as well as the presidential vote by congressional district,
if

possible,assign
each all delegates and alternates to represent

a the Presidential candidate (or uncommitted) who wins a plurality

of the statewide Presidential Primary Vote, and upon
that assignmentthe

assignment
and nomination by the National Nominations Committee

to a
Presidential candidate’s slate, each delegate and alternate

representing
a Presidential candidate becomes pledged to the

Presidential
candidate on whose slate the delegate and alternate

is nominated
in accordance with subsection b of this section.

The State
Chairman, National Committeeman, and National

Committeewoman,
who are national delegates under Rule of The

Republican
Party 13(a)(2) by the virtue of their office shall

not
become pledged to a candidate and remain uncommitted as

specified
below, nor shall they be counted as uncommitted for

the
purposes of proportional assignment made in this section.

The State
Chairman, National Committeeman, and National

Committeewoman
may vote as they choose on all questions and

candidates
presented at the National Convention.

“Modified Winner Take All” TO
THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY AND EMERGENCY CHANGES TO RPT RULES:

Section
10. Pledge of Delegates and Alternates.

a.
Commitment to Candidate: Following canvass of the

presidential
primary by the SREC, the State Chairman shall, in a

manner directly proportional to the statewide presidential
vote,

as well as the presidential vote by congressional district,
if

possible,assign
each all delegates and alternates to represent a the

Presidential
candidate (or uncommitted) who wins 50% or more of

the statewide Presidential Primary Vote. If no candidate receives
50% or

more of the statewide Presidential Primary Vote, each
delegate and

alternate will be assigned based on the following method:

11) District Delegate and Alternate Entitlement: A
candidate receiving a plurality of the votes cast in the Texas Republican
Presidential Primary canvassed on a statewide basis shall be entitled to all
District delegates and alternates (3 from each congressional district).

22)At-Large Delegate and Alternate
Entitlement: At-Large Delegates and Alternates will be assigned to represent a
Presidential Candidate in a manner directly proportional to the statewide
Presidential Vote, as well as the presidential vote by congressional district,
if possible.

and, Upon that assignmentthe

assignment
and nomination by the National Nominations Committee

to a
Presidential candidate’s slate, each delegate and alternate

representing
a Presidential candidate becomes pledged to the

Presidential
candidate on whose slate the delegate and alternate

is nominated
in accordance with subsection b of this section.

The State
Chairman, National Committeeman, and National

Committeewoman,
who are national delegates under Rule of The

Republican
Party 13(a)(2) by the virtue of their office shall

not
become pledged to a candidate and remain uncommitted as

specified
below, nor shall they be counted as uncommitted for

the
purposes of proportional assignment made in this section.

The State
Chairman, National Committeeman, and National

Committeewoman
may vote as they choose on all questions and

candidates
presented at the National Convention.

“Plurality Proportional” Amendment TO
THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY AND EMERGENCY CHANGES TO RPT RULES:

Section
10. Pledge of Delegates and Alternates.

a.
Commitment to Candidate: Following canvass of the

presidential
primary by the SREC, the State Chairman shall, in a

manner directly proportional to the statewide presidential
vote,

as well as the presidential vote by congressional district,
if

possible,assign
each delegateto represent aPresidential

candidate
(or uncommitted) based on the following method:

11) District Delegate and Alternate Entitlement: A
candidate receiving a plurality of the votes cast in the Texas Republican
Presidential Primary canvassed on a statewide basis shall be entitled to all
District delegates and alternates (3 from each congressional district).

22)At-Large Delegate and Alternate
Entitlement: At-Large Delegates and Alternates will be assigned to represent a
Presidential Candidate in a manner directly proportional to the statewide
Presidential Vote, as well as the presidential vote by congressional district,
if possible.

and, Upon that assignmentthe

assignment
and nomination by the National Nominations Committee

to a
Presidential candidate’s slate, each delegate and alternate

representing
a Presidential candidate becomes pledged to the

Presidential
candidate on whose slate the delegate and alternate

is nominated
in accordance with subsection b of this section.

The State
Chairman, National Committeeman, and National

Committeewoman,
who are national delegates under Rule of The

Republican
Party 13(a)(2) by the virtue of their office shall

not
become pledged to a candidate and remain uncommitted as

specified
below, nor shall they be counted as uncommitted for

the
purposes of proportional assignment made in this section.

The State
Chairman, National Committeeman, and National

Committeewoman
may vote as they choose on all questions and

candidates
presented at the National Convention.

“Congressional District Heavy Winner
Take All” AmendmentTO THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY AND EMERGENCY CHANGES TO RPT
RULES:

Section
10. Pledge of Delegates and Alternates.

a.
Commitment to Candidate: Following canvass of the

presidential
primary by the SREC, the State Chairman shall, in a

manner directly proportional to the statewide presidential
vote,

as well as the presidential vote by congressional district,
if

possible,assign
each all delegates and alternates to represent a the

Presidential
candidate (or uncommitted) who wins 50% or more of

the statewide Presidential Primary Vote. If no candidate receives
50% or

more of the statewide Presidential Primary Vote, each
delegate and

alternate will be assigned based on the following method:

11)District Delegate and Alternate Entitlement: A
candidate receiving 50% or more of the votes cast in each Congressional
District will receive all 3 of the delegates and alternates from each
Congressional District that the candidates has 50% or more of the vote. If no
candidate has 50% or more of the vote in a Congressional District then a
candidate receiving a plurality of the votes cast in each Congressional
District in the Texas Republican Primary shall be entitled to 2 of the Delegates
and Alternates from each district the candidate has a plurality. The candidate receiving
the second highest number of votes in each Congressional District where no
candidate has 50% or more of the vote will receive 1 District delegate and
alternate from each district where the candidate has the second highest number
of votes.

22)At-Large Delegate and Alternate
Entitlement: All at-Large Delegates and Alternates will be assigned to
represent the Presidential Candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote
in the Texas Presidential Primary Election.

11)District Delegate and Alternate Entitlement: A
candidate receiving 50% or more of the votes cast in each Congressional
District will receive all 3 of the delegates and alternates from each
Congressional District that the candidates has 50% or more of the vote. If no
candidate has 50% or more of the vote in a Congressional District then a
candidate receiving a plurality of the votes cast in each Congressional
District in the Texas Republican Primary shall be entitled to 2 of the Delegates
and Alternates from each district the candidate has a plurality. The candidate receiving
the second highest number of votes in each Congressional District where no
candidate has 50% or more of the vote will receive 1 District delegate and
alternate from each district where the candidate has the second highest number
of votes.

22)At-Large Delegate and Alternate
Entitlement: All at-Large Delegates and Alternates will be assigned to
represent the Presidential Candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote
in the Texas Presidential Primary Election.

14 comments:

I oppose all of these amendments. Why is it that if a candidate wins a majority of a Congressional District, but not a plurality of the state, that candidate should receive zero delegates?

I have always voted Republican, and always avail myself of the opportunity to take part in precinct & County/Senate District conventions to try to influence our platform and make our party even better. We do not utilize a unit rule, and our party was founded on the ideas of individual, and not group rights. In 1856, John Fremont advocated free speech and free labor. Why should we silence the minority of our party, or weaken the competitiveness of our election?

If these votes pass, I hope that delegates to the state convention will rally to throw out the rules committee recommendations, and refuse to adopt any rules that don't restore proportionality, and/or allow the convention to send only unpledged delegates to the national convention. State law cannot contravene our freedom of association rights (and the Supreme Court has affirmed this in court cases against Washington's attempt to meddle in its party primaries).

This is just an attempt to buoy Santorum, and leave the free market wing of the Republican party out in the cold! The only way for a winner-take-all system to be viable is implement Single Transferable Voting, so that primary voters can vote their conscience, and assure their vote has voice in the two-person match up after the 3rd & 4th place finishers' votes are "transferred" to 2nd and 3rd preferences. Since this is beyond the scope of what party rules can achieve, it must be left for future elections.

if you read my three proposals above, the two proposals that incorporate splitting votes up between the candidates DO incorporate the congressional district winners, where possible.

you do realize that, before Oct 2011, Texas was not fully proportional and any candidate who won 50% or more of the vote got ALL of the Texas delegates. I am not proposing anything new. We have ALWAYS done this. The only reason we changed it was because the RNC made us. By the way, the President is not elected by proportional popular vote either. in the general Presidential election, the winner of each state gets the ENTIRE STATE'S ELECTORAL VOTES. Presidential races have NEVER been about popular votes. They have always been about the winner of a state getting all of the delegates of that state.

Proportional might sound good vs winner take all because under proportional the candidates get a proportion of Texas delegates based on the percentage of the votes they get in the state Primary Election. The problem is that proportional weakens states rights. With proportional we might as well just have a big nation-wide popular vote. With winner take all, the State of Texas (as well as all states with winner take all) has a much bigger impact on the Presidential race because the candidate who wins Texas really does win Texas and gets all of the delegate votes from the State. Same thing with the Electoral College. The President does not win by a national popular vote. The President wins by the electoral college and he wins by winning the most states, not the most people. It is all about states rights and not about a national popular vote. With Texas having such a late election, we need all the power we can to have an impact on the Presidential race!

I re-read, and it still looks to me as if the district delegates will all go to the plurality winner of the state, even if the plurality winner of that district is a different individual.

"11) District Delegate and Alternate Entitlement: A candidate receiving a plurality of the votes cast in the Texas Republican Presidential Primary canvassed on a statewide basis shall be entitled to all District delegates and alternates (3 from each congressional district)."

The reference to Congressional District allocation, "if possible", is only out of the at-large districts. This almost seems like an inversion. If the district delegates are awarded to district winners, it is always possible to give the district winner some delegates.

As for the fact that "[w]e have ALWAYS done this", that argument lacks moral suasion, and the impact argument is purely pragmatic. I'll address the comment on both grounds.

First, competitiveness & impact: Proportionality means every vote counts, and Texas can't be written off once/if someone gets a commanding lead. Many states this year have seen Republican turnout go down, and it serves the party well to have it go up, as it invests voters in the outcome and generates enthusiasm to beat Obama. When outcomes are predetermined, the need to participate for the average voter diminishes (less potential pay-off). If the race stays more competitive, that can cause commanding leads to vanish - notice the changing climate in Michigan, where Romney is having to work for his victory on his home turf - and the state primary voters are served by having to be courted. That's our impact, rather than having one huge unit-rule-esque push in Tampa, having a strong ~153 delegate pool that is heavily courted here in our own state.

Ethically, why shouldn't loyal Republicans who prefer a different candidate than the majority of their fellow partisans have their view respected enough to have it represented in Tampa? Not only is this fair, it also serves two other virtues: humility and gratuity. It is humble because the majority recognizes that dialogue with a loyal minority is something from which both sides can learn. It pays gratuity, because among the minority (regardless of whose supporters it composes) are people who have contributed time and donations, and so their smaller but proportional voice pays tribute. It says, "yes, we won, but this is our party, and so we justly take the larger portion, but share the delegation with you."

The analogy to the electoral college, which I support, is what Herman Cain would call "comparing apples and oranges". The Electoral College represents sovereign states in a federal process. States are rarely gerrymandered for political effect, and so it is often desirable to use the state as a winner-take-all district, though this is not required by the electoral college, and Nebraska & Maine do use congressional district allocation. Plus, South Carolina long held out from the popular trend and allowed its state legislature to appoint electors.

The Party Nomination Process is more akin to a unitary state than a federal process, in that we are one party. Since there are not two long-term factions (i.e. Republican v. Democrat), but rather loose intra-party alliances only somewhat tied to geography, gerrymandering isn't an issue, nor is sovereign representation. Historically, the Republican Party is antecedent to the Texas Party (as it started in Wisconsin), but the electoral college reflects that Texas exists ex ante to the United States.

Proportionality does not weaken states rights anymore than the decision not to leave appointment of electors to the state legislature weakens states rights. The minority of Republicans in Texas are still Texas Republicans, and if we are a party of individual liberty, we should recognize the individuality of our membership.

I would say the difference between a primary is to have the VOTERS of the State of Texas represented in the primary process.

With proportional you send the RNC the actual proportions of who your state wants. When the RNC has their nominee, its as close to 99% chance of the Repub candidate winning. so they will STILL get ALL of Texas' delegates when it matters most.

I want my vote to count to the highest degree possible and a proportioned primary delivers that goal.

Under your plan if Rick Santorum gets 38%, Ron Paul gets 35%, and Romney gets 27% ALL OF THE DELIGATES GO TO SANTORUM. Resulting in 62% of the voters of the State of Texas not having their votes represented.

I vehemently oppose these rule changes. These prevent equal representation of the people of Texas. In fact, I would consider it a deliberate and calculated attempt to subvert the delegate and election process to favor the Goldman Sachs candidate. If this is an indication of how the Texas GOP intends to play, this bodes badly for the party. To survive, the GOP must be inclusive, not exclusive. If you do this, you will have made it all the easier for Obama to be re-elected. You see, the party must have independents, democrats, and republicans to beat Obama. If the delegates are proportional, these much needed voters will pull together - that is with the candidate who these groups all support, and create a win for the GOP. But, if all of the groups' votes won't carry equal weight, proportional weight, they will not vote Republican, and the GOP will not defeat Obama.

Ask yourself, would the voters in Texas want their votes to count? If you answer yes, the delegates must be proportional.

Dividing the weight of our vote does not seem good.Divide and be conquered is not what we need.Consider if we divided by Red and Blue county.The blue might not carry the state, but they surely would benefit from a votes in their favor.Undivided, there is still hope for the Texas block to fall on the side of tradition, conservative, American values. That is where I want to see all of the Texas votes go. Not just a portion. Whomever Texans vote could use all of Texas' votes. If we have to worry about also defeating the RNC planned candidate, then things continue worse. I think state's rights are best protected by singular block votes. Divided votes reverts back to popular vote. Let us strive for a republic more. Dividing the vote does seem a way to approach a pure democracy (and political gamesmanship) which I hope none of us wants.

Larry and David, you both cry out for tyranny of the majority. You want the minority voters to essentially disappear. What happened to Consent of the governed. I don't really care what the history is or what the goals for Texas are. History and tradition are weak arguments because they do not, in any way, propose logic should be introduced. History and tradition, according to your arguments, would disable you, David or Larry from making any changes ever. Change is not necessarily bad, it is not necessarily good. If someone's rights of self determination are given by their creator, and recognized in the constitution, how can they be taken away simply because a majority of those who live around them decide it should be so? You should not be able to re-direct someone's support behind a person who performed according to your arbitrary rules on percentages. Why not make it 60% winner take all. or 90%? The percentage is arbitrary. 50% in a republic means nothing. 50% in a democracy means everything. Every vote should count. Your vote should not be affected by how others have voted within a man-made, arbitrary, geographical boundary, I.E. Texas state lines. Texas is not a person. Texas is a geographical location. Votes are made by individuals. Votes are not made by a geographical location. Therefore, Texas should allow proportionality. What is Texas or America, other than ideas. Let every mans or womans ideas be heard. Your assumptions are also based upon the idea that the majority in Texas is right, which is highly debatable. The presidential vote should also be proportional. If you want democracy, lets have it. Pure and simple. Why do we pussy foot around the issues. Either democracy works or it doesn't. Which is it? Do we trust people to communicate well informed, intelligent votes or do we not? Why should the majority silence the minority? That is tyranny and that is the antithesis of a republic. Which we are by the way!

Larry, you propose that we would be dividing the weight of "our vote". There is not such thing as "our vote"! Their is an individuals vote. That is it. Your idea of "our vote" seems strangely similar to a collective. The idea of a collective is more akin to socialism or communism. Not republics which recognize individuals rights. Which our constitution does. You seem to not understand what a republic is, exactly. Majority rule is not equal to a republic. The problem with the Conservative vs. the Liberal argument which you seem to focus on, is that both are collectives attempting to impose their ideas and opinions on the other collective, without any concern to the constitution. Both are tyrannical. Both assume powers as a collective which they do not have as individuals. MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. You like the idea of the majority silencing the minorities because you happen to be in the majority. What happens when you are the minority? Will you sit back and be silenced as you request others to do now? Your arguments are not based upon principles. They are based upon force. Force is always beneficial to those who exercise it. What happens when you do not have the power to exercise it any longer? What happens when you think the majority of Texans are crazy, non-traditional, and out of touch with your principles? Should you be silenced then because your vote does not line up with the majorities? I would imagine you do not like that proposition much.

If it is possible at all to award delegates proportionally then that should be the way they are awarded. Proportional delegates allows for the best possible representation of voter preference. Winner-take-all silences the minority. We Republicans cannot afford to do so. We must maintain the big-tent attitude.

Ok, so if the winner of each congressional district got ALL of the congressional district delegates of that district then you would be ok with that because it allows candidates to get delegates for the districts that they win? Let me see what I can do

Looks like the Republican Party is slipping the noose over it's own neck and the rules will determine how "tight" it is drawn! Come May 29 the voters will throw the lever on the gallows and the "Republican" Party will be no more!

Let's remember one thing: the people were to vote for their own state congress, and for their representatives in congress in Washington. Their state senators were to vote for president. There was a narrowing of the funnel. We've had way too much mis-education about our government.